zlacker

[parent] [thread] 24 comments
1. paxys+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-09-13 12:47:24
It's way worse in the case of YouTube/Twitch than OnlyFans IMO. People have been paying for pornography/sex for millennia. It's just part of human nature. On the other hand an 11 year old throwing money at MrBeast...why?
replies(5): >>magic1+y1 >>raxxor+W2 >>BeefWe+z8 >>philwe+ua >>jayd16+ns
2. magic1+y1[view] [source] 2024-09-13 12:57:42
>>paxys+(OP)
While I agree with the general sentiment of your comment, the specific example you used is not really relevant: MrBeast is not on twitch, and his revenue comes from youtube ads and brand partnerships. He also has 'classic' merch and several companies (burgers, chocolate bars), but he doesn't bring in any money from subscriptions/donations the way twitch streamers or onlyfan creators do.
3. raxxor+W2[view] [source] 2024-09-13 13:07:28
>>paxys+(OP)
The vast majority of people will not have ever paid for porn or sex though. Sure sexual indulgement in some form is human nature, but it always is a special group that uses such direct or indirect services.
replies(1): >>paxys+k3
◧◩
4. paxys+k3[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-13 13:10:01
>>raxxor+W2
The vast majority of people are also not paying OnlyFans.
replies(2): >>raxxor+S3 >>andrel+p8
◧◩◪
5. raxxor+S3[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-13 13:15:55
>>paxys+k3
That is what I meant, I understood you comment as "paying for OnlyFans" is human nature. I would dispute that as a general statement because I believe it is a very special demographic that does that.
replies(1): >>paxys+E4
◧◩◪◨
6. paxys+E4[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-13 13:20:51
>>raxxor+S3
Sure, but that "special demographic" has stayed consistent throughout human history. Which is why this entire market has existed for a similar period.
replies(1): >>raxxor+Ok
◧◩◪
7. andrel+p8[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-13 13:49:32
>>paxys+k3
9.4% of men in an official Swedish study from 2017 said they have paid for sexual services (0.5% of women). It's a minority but still almost 1/10. I can only imagine that OnlyFans has normalized this behavior a lot since then.

There's also the narrative that people on these platforms are choosing to do this because they make a lot of money, and that it's less problematic than the rest of the porn industry somehow. I'm very sceptical about both of these notions.

replies(2): >>AtlasB+Te >>chgs+Sd2
8. BeefWe+z8[view] [source] 2024-09-13 13:50:29
>>paxys+(OP)
Same reason why kids have paid for Transformers merch, Star Wars merch, band merch, etc.

It's a brand, they like it, they want to be reminded of it and show their love of it off. It creates an "in group" which is socially valuable. Streamers are nothing special in that regard.

replies(1): >>foursi+Qg
9. philwe+ua[view] [source] 2024-09-13 14:04:18
>>paxys+(OP)
You can get porn anywhere. The selling point of OnlyFans is specifically the parasocial connection. These people are paying money to exchange DM’s with LLM’s and third world gig workers pretending to be their favorite porn star.
replies(2): >>sirspa+bb >>gspenc+6E
◧◩
10. sirspa+bb[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-13 14:08:22
>>philwe+ua
Porn once again predicts the future of social tech.
◧◩◪◨
11. AtlasB+Te[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-13 14:37:59
>>andrel+p8
Ah the slippery slope of distinguishing dating vs pay for sex.
replies(1): >>pfdiet+uv
◧◩
12. foursi+Qg[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-13 14:51:14
>>BeefWe+z8
There is an important difference between a kid spending money on a toy versus spending it on a person.
replies(3): >>krisof+4A >>vasco+MA >>BeefWe+f51
◧◩◪◨⬒
13. raxxor+Ok[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-13 15:18:18
>>paxys+E4
I would understand human nature to mean that it affects every human, but sure, after that definition I guess it remains some form of constant at least.
14. jayd16+ns[view] [source] 2024-09-13 16:05:43
>>paxys+(OP)
I'm sure celebrities and socialites and thought leaders and such have existed throughout time ... But we've gotten really good at monetizing it.
replies(1): >>steve_+Ux
◧◩◪◨⬒
15. pfdiet+uv[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-13 16:24:32
>>AtlasB+Te
> slippery slope

An excellent porn star name.

◧◩
16. steve_+Ux[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-13 16:39:28
>>jayd16+ns
I suspect it was always monetized as well, but the internet allows for both for a massive increase in followers and an increasingly easy path for money to move from the followers’ wallets to the celebrities. It seems new or unprecedented, but similar models have existed on smaller scales for thousands of years at least.
replies(1): >>Ekaros+0H
◧◩◪
17. krisof+4A[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-13 16:52:45
>>foursi+Qg
Would you tell us what is that important difference? Just for those of us who can't read your thoughts yet.
replies(1): >>biking+aH
◧◩◪
18. vasco+MA[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-13 16:58:57
>>foursi+Qg
I had football jerseys with my favorite player's name on them growing up and I'd look up to my birthday to see if I got one or I had to wait another year. This seems like an arbitrary decision. I don't see any difference in buying a jersey of my favorite player or a kid now getting a t-shirt merch of their favorite youtuber.
◧◩
19. gspenc+6E[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-13 17:23:09
>>philwe+ua
You're making an assumption.

I owned an operated a "free" adult website for 18 years. For 15 years it was my primary source of income. During those years I always got a kick out of "there is so much free porn online, why would anyone ever pay for it?"

The way that my website worked was that it was very content-rich and content-focused. The content came directly from the affiliate programs that I was advertising for. Despite it being all advertising, I often got compliments that my website was "ad free." That's because I didn't push banner ads or anything intrusive. It was free content plus a text link that you could click on if you wanted more of that content.

The website shut down in 2022, and the bank accounts are all closed. But many of the affiliate accounts are still pulling rebills.

Most of the subscription based websites that were advertised were not websites that promised any sort of interaction with the performers or models. It was very obvious that you were paying for content, not social interaction and if anyone were ever confused as to that, the rebill numbers would have reflected otherwise. The fact that an indivdual subscription rebills is not a conclusive indication of a happy customer. But when so many in the aggregate rebill, it doesn't really paint the picture of a large number of people feeling duped. It's also worth noting that chargeback rates were nearly non-existent. I could count the number of times that happened over 18 years on one hand.

Now, if you've read this far thanks, I will acknowledge that we're talking about OF specifically.

At the risk of TMI, I subscribe personally to one adult content site: suicide girls. I am happily married, I'm not looking for any social interaction. It's purely eye candy. Many of the models on that site promote their personal OF pages, and while I haven't subscribed to any, I will admit that I've been tempted because they produce content that I like and I'm curious about what else they offer. I'm not at all interested in DM'ing them or trying to start some kind of parasocial relationship. I've watched a few live streams on SG, have even had some interaction in the chats in those ... but there's no desire what-so-ever to try and have some kind of "relationship." I've never tipped them or sent them money or gifts. Just the annually recurring subscription to the SG website.

People who are in difficult situations in life, have mental illnesses or physical disabilities may try and use online porn to fill a void in their life, and for some it may be unhealthy. People also stalk celebrities for the same reason. Yet we seem to make more assumptions and talk about it a hell of a lot more when it comes pornography for some reason. I'm not saying that there aren't social issues that are important to look at and talk about. But when it comes to porn there's such a taboo and willingness to shame others and make mass assumptions about their motivations even though we have very little idea of what we're actually talking about.

replies(1): >>philwe+fB2
◧◩◪
20. Ekaros+0H[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-13 17:41:08
>>steve_+Ux
Think back to ancient philosophers. Who got students to pay for their work or students parents, or just outright donations... And later various artists both those creating works and performing them. Patronage is very old model.
replies(1): >>steve_+JB2
◧◩◪◨
21. biking+aH[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-13 17:43:11
>>krisof+4A
I think the implication is that if a kid buys a toy they will have something tangible that they can play and interact with, but tipping/donating to a streamer doesn't provide that.
◧◩◪
22. BeefWe+f51[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-13 20:38:36
>>foursi+Qg
I'm not talking about toys, though I'd argue they're much the same.

I'm talking backpacks, lunch boxes, t-shirts, hats, etc. You know, merch.

◧◩◪◨
23. chgs+Sd2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-14 12:08:05
>>andrel+p8
I wonder how many of those were going to a strip club on a friends drag do
◧◩◪
24. philwe+fB2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-14 16:14:21
>>gspenc+6E
I appreciate your comment and I find your stories interesting. I'm saying this because I'm going to clarify my point in a way that might otherwise come across as dismissive. I know people pay for porn. I was specifically talking about what differentiates OnlyFans from other paid porn sites, and that's the parasocial aspect. It's not just an unhealthy thing that some people do; it's a huge part of how they distinguish themselves from the decades-established online porn industry.
◧◩◪◨
25. steve_+JB2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-14 16:19:16
>>Ekaros+0H
yes, these are perfect examples. I was going to add people like Jordan Peterson here in Canada, but now I’m not sure if he’s entirely different. Maybe he would have qualified as a philosopher worth teaching people 2000 years ago. He’s certainly intelligent. Perhaps his model of gathering attention is the part that’s different, yet even that I’m not entirely sure of… But people like him do seem to be part of that new phenomenon that the internet has enabled.
[go to top]